Readers know full well this blogger has at times made sport of the Ronulan Internet hordes, patrolling the far reaches of the world wide web on behalf of the good Doctor. Readers who have experience with the behavior of said Ronulans in comment threads across the blogosphere know full well why this is so.
Nevertheless, there is a portion of the Ron Paul nation that does deserve to be taken seriously. See comment #11 at this thread:
11. Eric Earling,Having enjoyed (at times) your insight, perspective and political expertise over the last few years of my admittedly sporadic SP readership, I am frankly stupefied and dismayed at your snarky and cavalier dismissal of the Ron Paul movement during this presidential campaign.
Obviously nothing I can say is going to impact your opinion of us "Ronulans", so I'm not going to bother trying to change your mind. I do think it's unfortunate that you've written off the one true Constitutional originalist in this campaign, and I urge you to reconsider.
Of course, what do I know - I'm just a taxpaying small business owner who will probably relocate to Panama, Australia or India in the next few years if current trends persist. Nah, this country doesn't need me. Never mind.
Yours in serfdom,
Erik "F. A. Hayek" Huber
Posted by: Erik Huber on June 6, 2008 12:14 AM
I've said before that libertarian-minded Republicans who find appeal in some aspects of Ron Paul's campaign should be welcomed in to the GOP fold. Mr. Huber sounds like exactly such a soul. Discussions of the Ronulans are not designed to include such civil, well-intentioned, principled conservatives.
Sadly, a disturbing number of Ron Paul supporters come nothing close to that description. Despite the flaws of those vocal purveyors of crazy time, the Erik Huber's of the world should be welcomed in the Republican party. Their aid in working for Dino Rossi's campaign would be much appreciated and would generally speaking benefit conservative principles.
That said, a notable number of Ronulans appear to be way more trouble than they are worth. Republicans with a strong libertarian bent on one thing. The Ron Paul internet masses are another.
Moreover, the troublesome conduct of some Paul backers is not limited to web-based vitriol. Note this video from the recent state GOP convention:
Anyone who has ever seen Kirby Wilbur chair a large Republican gathering knows full well he is eminently fair in conducting such duties. Professional, courteous, and patient - even when he would have reasonable license to be otherwise. Thus, the fact that Wilbur finally loses it and snaps at the yelling Paul delegates really says something about the conduct of some of them over the course of those couple days. Wilbur starts speaking at about 0:18 on the video and snaps at 0:40, including an angrily spoken "How thick are you?!"
Valid question. And a big reason why some Ron Paul supporters are welcome in the GOP...and others are most definitely not.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 07, 2008 09:28 PM | Email ThisIt would be along the lines of someone reading the passage out of the Bible that says "The world will despise you because of me," and then expect literally every single person in the world other then Christians to hate all Christians. That's how Paul reads the Constitution. It's not originalism. It's idiocy.
Posted by: Cliff on June 7, 2008 09:26 PMI think that many of the libertarians have a problem with presentation. I agree with many of their positions. But a mentor of mine once told me that presentation is as important as the message.
The Ron Paul supporters have a great deal of energy and going forward I think they can help the Republicans get back to being conservative.
Posted by: ducttape2 on June 7, 2008 10:02 PMPaul admits that he is a strict constitutionalist. To call his reading childish is over the top. In fact, he is correct when he says that it is unconstitutional for the country to go to war without a Congressional declaration.
Also, he has challenged in Congress (successfully) certain portions of the Patriot Act on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. Were these successes in Congress also a result of his childish reading of the Constitution? No, of course not and that is why a majority of Congressmen agreed with his amendments.
I resent you referring to Paul's reading as idiocy. Please, how about a reasonable debate?
Posted by: Huckans on June 7, 2008 10:05 PMThe argument you have made about it is unconstituional to go to war without a declaration is up to debate. One may say that Congress did declare war when they authorized the use of force in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Nowhere in the contitution does it specify the exact vebage for a declaration of war; therefore it can be argued that by Congress voting to autorize the use of force they met the criteria of declaring war.
Ducttape,
You hit the nail on the head when you said, "I think that many of the libertarians have a problem with presentation. I agree with many of their positions. But a mentor of mine once told me that presentation is as important as the message."
And Joe could learn from what ducttape said. It is hard to take someone serious and want to have open debate with them when they come across as seething with anger. Joe, it appears that you are new to this site, so I will point out that many on this site are not thrilled about McCain in the least bit, but when you come here and just start ranting like you did in post 3 it comes across more that you are upset that Ron Paul did not win the nomination than you are willing to debate an issue.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 7, 2008 11:12 PMSenator McCain is undoubtedly a fine man who has served his country well and paid dearly while doing so. I can recognize Senator McCain's contributions and still find his policies completely unacceptable to me. After hearing both the Senator and the Congressman speak and reading their writing, I still very much prefer Congressman Paul's positions.
To the party unity folks: I ask if it's important to you what principles we're unifying to serve. Is it simply to beat Senator Obama, but still enact his proposed level of spending, just in different spheres? What makes that a better choice?
When Senator McCain starts to follow a conservative agenda even approaching that demonstrated by Congressman Paul's 20 years of service, I'll consider supporting him. Until then I'll vote for the candidate closest to my interests, no matter how likely anyone thinks his chances are to win.
Posted by: Akston on June 7, 2008 11:44 PMThe seperation of powers is quite clear in the constitution and one branch delegating its powers to another is not allowed.
Posted by: Lysander on June 8, 2008 02:07 AMAs I stated show me in the Constituition where there is exact verbege for a declaration of war. You can not, because it does not exist. With this being said one can make the case that the President went to Congress for an authorization to use force against an enemy in a foreign coutry. I do not know about you, but the use of our military on foriegn soil against an enemy is what a war consits of; therefore the argument can be made by asking Congress to authorize the use of force and Congress granting it, Congress declared war.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 8, 2008 04:08 AMRon Paul supporters are not the problem. They represent a symptom of a problem. At the MN GOP State Convention, at least 40% of the delegates believed that the Republican Party had drifted from its conservative roots (as indicated by how the delegates voted on issues and National Delegates). The MN Republican Party leadership specifically took a long list of steps (like most other State GOP leadership) to ensure that this 40% had zero influence in the debates, platform, and National Delegate selection.
Why should it be any surprise that these "Ron Paul" people are upset when they are targeted and denied participation?
The Republican Party has a problem and it is not Ron Paul supporters. Both Gov. Pawlenty and Sen. Norm Coleman said in convention speeches that the GOP has a "problem" and that we have forgotten what we stand for. Pawlenty described it in market terms saying "our customers are preferring our competitors products (democrats) over ours, why is this and what do we do about it?".
I say get off your butt and try and fix the Republican Party and quit complaining about others that are trying.
-- Ronald Reagan, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
Posted by: J. O'Brien on June 8, 2008 05:47 AMLuap Nor is a crank who gets elected from a safe district. There might be a few people in the US who share similar economic or cultural views, but he has virtually no broad support.
I suspect that a large amount of the noise about Luap Nor comes from people who would drool over his candidacy because it would ensure a blowout election for Obama.
Posted by: steve miller on June 8, 2008 06:25 AMThat's not how Christians read it, that's how Jews read it.
Posted by: Brink on June 8, 2008 06:33 AMArticle 1: Section 8: (excerpt)
Congress shall have power ...
TO DECLARE WAR, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, buy no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To use the words of the man in the video, "How thick are you?"
Posted by: Brink on June 8, 2008 06:39 AMThey make the Ronulans look crazy, but what can be said for political parties who think the Constitution itself is nothing more than a rag of paper? If that isn't INSANITY, then nothing is.
Posted by: Margaret on June 8, 2008 07:19 AMYou just proved my point. As it states (and so have I) the Constitution gives Congress the power to Declare war, but it does not specify the verbage that has to be listed on the declaration of war; therefore when Congress authorized the use of our military force, on foreign soil against an enemy(I think we can all agree that is a pretty fair definiton of war) they for all intent and purpose declared war.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 8, 2008 07:20 AMHow much of the Ron Paul movement is funded by Soros?
It certainly has his scent about it.
Posted by: deadwood on June 8, 2008 07:36 AMhttp://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm
http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Guest-Column-28.html
So there are parts of the constitution that are "no longer relavant?!" Thank you Woodrow Wilson for poisoning the body politic with anti-American rhetoric that won't go away.
Ron Paul tried to get Congress to formerly declare war on Iraq. None of his fellow congressmen went for it. In fact they were upset that he put them up to it.
An O.K. to the President to go to war is not the same thing as a formal declaration. It's a skirting of duty.
As Ron Paul himself says:
"One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed," while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be 'frivolous.' I don't think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it."
Look I do not disagree with all of Rep Paul's postions, only some of them. I do feel that the majority of Ron Paul supporters have much to offer to the Conservative movement, after all not everyone will agree on all aspects of everything. We are all only human after all.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 8, 2008 08:02 AMYou stated "You just proved my point. As it states (and so have I) the Constitution gives Congress the power to Declare war, but it does not specify the verbage that has to be listed on the declaration of war; therefore when Congress authorized the use of our military force, on foreign soil against an enemy(I think we can all agree that is a pretty fair definiton of war) they for all intent and purpose declared war."
What I would like to know is by what threat or crime made Iraq our "enemy"? They had absolutely nothing to do with 911 and were no threat to us. I think the biggest enemy or threat to this country is a domestic enemy. The same ones that swore that the intelligence was solid about Iraq and the so called weapons of mass destruction. We need look no further than the White house.
And by the way, it would be my understanding that Congress shall have power ... "To declare war" it doesn't say anything about using force as I assume you mean police action or any U.N resolution.
...this advice from someone who's going to write in Ron Paul in November, effectively pissing his vote away.
Uninformed is one thing, plain stupidity is another.
Keep tilting at windmills Ronulans, it's great entertainment.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 8, 2008 09:05 AMTo not do so, you will be inviting the very outcome you claim you're trying to prevent.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 8, 2008 10:00 AMYou guys have forgotten the basics - we, the individual people are born with unalienable rights, and those rights are very very extensive, and go all the way to doing things that some people find offensive.
Brewing liquor and/or getting drunk.
Growing pot and/or getting stoned.
Smoking on our own land or public land (that nobody else owns).
Moving about in the country without having to produce identification papers.
Getting married at age 16, and/or marrying more than one person, and/or even being gay.
Agreeing to work for someone at a mutually agreeable wage without any floors or ceilings.
Allowing your grass to grow higher than 6 inches.
Supplying your own water or sewage needs without having to pay a tax for government services you don't use.
fishing/cutting hair atc. without a license.
Living at your shop/Working from your home.
I could go on, but notice that none of these things involves hurting someone else, or interfering with someone else's rights.
The point is simply that individual freedom is right, proper, and the key to a dynamic and diversified economy. The ONLY reason we institute governments is to secure our unalienable rights - period.
Not to tell us how/where to live/work.
Not to tell other countries how to live.
Not to enrich some classes of society at the expense of others, which fiat money systems have done since the beginning of time.
Now, what all you Paul and Paultard-bashers, and also you equivocators who like to say that you "agree with some things that Paul is saying, but..." don't seem to realize - is that you have been fooled. Jobbed. Totally corrupted. And, it was predicted from Day One that it would happen.
Check again the words of Jefferson, who said that freedom would be taken, not in huge gobs, but in small, incremental steps, and, that the natural course of things is for liberty to yield and for tyranny to gain ground. You must honestly ask yourselves, is Paul standing with liberty, or are you? Check where you differ from him, and please be sure that acceptance of tyranny has not become a part of your thinking.
Is it possible that your thinking has been corrupted? The question is not an academic one, because if the state and its irredeemable promises (S.S./ Universal Health care / universal war / national debt and current account deficit) are not checked, IT IS ALL OF OUR CHILDREN WHO WILL BE STUCK - NOT ONLY WITH THE BILL, BUT ALSO WITH PAYING FOR THE GIANT GOVERNMENT THAT WILL FORCE PAYMENT OF THAT BILL.
It's well into the hundreds of thousands NOW people - PER CHILD - and I'm sorry, but I haven't heard anyone but Ron Paul and precious few others, openly talking about the implications to our kids of starting out their working lives with these government debts and obligations hanging over their heads.
Some people have this idea that, because things (fiat money, drug war, foreign wars,) are a certain way now, that they SHOULD be that way and no other way would work better. Worse, many people actually think that things cannot materially change, because "they" won't allow it.
I think, more than anything, this erroneous way of thinking is really what divides Ron Paul from other politicians. He is not sucked into this bland acceptance of "hey, it is what it is" and realizes that the laws of economics cannot be repealed. He knows and has been saying for years that what we are doing economically is NOT SUSTAINABLE.
The same can be said of his supporters, many of them angry like me, and our detractors, like many posters here. We are dealing in reality; and many of you are still dealing in fantasy. Reality can be rude, angry, offensive, and unpleasant.
Sorry.
I could say much more, obviously, but I must close by saying that Ron Paul is one of the most serious constitutional scholars alive at this time, and his reading of it agrees with the mainstream of constitutional scholarship.
Trying to drive a wedge between Ron Paul and the Constitution is a waste of time. You would have better luck trying to separate the Pope from Catholicism. Indeed, the person who attempts it exposes him/herself as a complete and utter fool. Or worse.
You would all do much better to work through your denial, and in so doing, contemplate the many ways that statism has worked to destroy our society. When you have honestly done that, you will realize that statism is THE enemy of the American people, just like Jefferson warned us, and nothing else comes close as a threat.
Then, perhaps you will consider us angry Ronulans in a different light.
Posted by: Tom deSabla on June 8, 2008 10:28 AMNot really. You'll be writing down the name of the guy that will get about 3% of the National vote in November. Reality? or Delusional thinking?
"...and many of you are still dealing in fantasy."
...I imagine if you click your heels and say "there's no man like Ron, There's no man like Ron" about 30 times, he might actually break the 4% mark in the Presidential election. A footnote in history for sure.
"Reality can be rude, angry, offensive, and unpleasant"
Which is why voting for John McCain in November is the only reasonable and sensibile thing to do.
My biggest fear though is what McCain will do internally within the Republican party to destroy any hint of conservatism with it. He despises conservatives with a passion and will do what he can to stop them from having any influence within the GOP.
And like I said he knows how to boil frogs where they will hop out of the pot with Obama.
And besides looking ahead the next four years with the economy and such things are going to be bad regardless which party is in the Presidency. So we aren't deciding if things are going to be bad or not, we are voting for who gets the blame.
I want the blame to go to the Democrats and Obama. I find it so strange that lots of people here wants the blame to go to the Republicans.
It took us a Carter to get us a Reagan. We must remember that in the campaign ahead of us.
And besides McCain wanted to be Kerry's VP pick. Just think all the nasty things you would have said about McCain had that happened. You are just a bunch of two faced party kool-aid drinkers.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 10:58 AMI want the Republicans to win in 2012.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 11:04 AMOr worse...
We would be calling each other comrade.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 11:12 AMWhile McCain is not even on my list of acceptable candidates, the reality is that it's between Bad and Worse this electon year and I've decided that Bad will have to do for now.
The Ron Paul people can write in the name of the guy that will get 3% and pat themselves on the back for doing so, but you've really accomplished nothing. A pragmatist understands this reality.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 8, 2008 11:25 AMYou can't put reasonable and sensible in the same sentence as John McCain. It's an oxymoron.
And by the way, for how many generations have Americans been voting for the better of two evils? It's been done your way long enough to destroy this country. It's time to think outside the box.
Ron Paul may only get 3% of the vote but it is the other 97% that think America is Democracy and the Federal Reserve is Federal and along with voting for the better of two evils is why people like you have destroyed this country.
Obama and McCain are both CFR (another private club) puppets and if you think choosing one over the other will make any difference you don't understand how deep the problem goes. They are both sides of the same coin.
Posted by: Jack D on June 8, 2008 11:40 AMObama, McCain, a 3%'er (Paul) or a 1%'er (Barr).
Which of the above are electable, and still hold the majority of your core positions and political philosophies?
The choice is clear.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 8, 2008 11:45 AMToo bad that you aren't sophisticated enough to look beyond one election cycle to see that.
And you still haven't addressed my concern about what McCain is doing and will do within the GOP to eradicate conservatism there. If neither major US party stands for conservative principles what chance do we really have!
Please don't be so short-sighted here.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 11:48 AMToo bad that you aren't sophisticated enough to look beyond one election cycle to see that.
And you still haven't addressed my concern about what McCain is doing and will do within the GOP to eradicate conservatism there. If neither major US party stands for conservative principles what chance do we really have!
Please don't be so short-sighted here.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 11:49 AMMeanwhile, you have the McCainilaks going around saying, exterminate the Conservatives, exterminate the Conservatives. (only Doctor Who fans would get the reference).
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 11:53 AMInteresting you mentioned the word "Boil"
It is because I don't want to be boiled that I am voting for Obama.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 11:57 AMOkay, who's been sipping from Alex Jones' conspiracy cup?
McCain spent 5-1/2 years getting tortured by the Vietnamese as a U.S. Soldier. Do you really want to go down the road of questioning his patriotism to this country?
Nick: as for shortsighted, It's hardly me doing that. I'm not the one intending to piss away my vote on Ron Paul........effectively doing nothing at all. The definition of insanity is to do the exact same thing over and over and expect a different result. A vote for Ron Paul is just that very thing as I found out when I voted for Perot and got Bill Clinton as a reward.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 8, 2008 11:59 AMNeither of the two major ones (McCain or Obama) come close to holding my core positions and political philoosphies. But with Obama the frog might just hop out of the socialist pot instead of being boiled alive as it will be with McCain.
And of course even as President Obama won't have any influence over what goes on internally with the Republican Party like McCain would.
If McCain was so devoted to your core positions Rick,(or come close to being) why did he want to hop over to the Democrats to be Kerry's running mate?
Don't drink the Republican Kool-Aid.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 12:05 PMAsk those in the POW movement how they feel about McCain.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 12:10 PMOn October 26, 1967, McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi. The fractures of 1 leg and both arms were reportedly due to his failure to tuck them in during ejection. According to U.S. News & World Report (May 14, 1973), McCain didn't wait long before offering military information in return for medical care. While an extraordinary patient at Gi Lam Hospital, he was visited by a number of dignitaries, including, to quote McCain himself, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the national hero of Dienbienphu.
Can you honestly tell me you knew that America is Republic and that the Federal Reserve was not a Government agency? Or is this just some more conspiracy crap?
Posted by: Jack D on June 8, 2008 12:14 PMI could call myself a gay nazi feminist transvestite if I wanted. Wouldn't make it so.
To call his reading childish is over the top. In fact, he is correct when he says that it is unconstitutional for the country to go to war without a Congressional declaration.
There is zero historical precident for this. In fact, Presidents going back to Jefferson have done exactly this and nobody said anything or said his actions were unconstitutional.
Read John Yoo's book on foreign policy and the Constitution for more info. Or Robert Kagan's Dangerous Nation.
Also, he has challenged in Congress (successfully) certain portions of the Patriot Act on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. Were these successes in Congress also a result of his childish reading of the Constitution? No, of course not and that is why a majority of Congressmen agreed with his amendments.
So now what a majority of Congress thinks is Constitutional is Constitutional?
Then why is he always on the loosing end of 434-1 votes by claiming things are unconstitutional?
Sorry, this is about the worst argument you could possibly have made.
I resent you referring to Paul's reading as idiocy. Please, how about a reasonable debate?
To have a reasonable debate, you need a reasonable position on which to debate. Paul's positions are not reasonable. Thus, a reasonable debate is not possible.
Posted by: Cliff on June 8, 2008 12:15 PMThe same could have been said about Kerry, yet you did. Yeah, I did too and I am glad I did.
There are lots of questions about McCain's time as a POW but of course the question also needs to be what did he do in public office,and the answer to that is that he did some very unpatriotic things in public office indeed.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 12:23 PMMore conspiracy Crap? Why not just let Alex Jones use your keyboard since he's obviously taken over your thought processes.
As for your love of the constitution, well, the SCOTUS is the FINAL interpreter of that document. Obama would appoint much more restrictionist/social justice/neo-Marxists on the court than McCain would (who's said he would appoint John Roberts types to the court).
Use your heads for something other than a hat rack please.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 8, 2008 12:30 PMYah...I don't think Ron Paul supporters want to accuse anyone of being sheep. It's not a good move for them.
Anyhow, a Ronulan trying to explain his worldview to someone is kind of like a trekkie nerd trying to explain his worldview to...an adult.
Posted by: Cliff on June 8, 2008 12:33 PMOne of America's greatest war heroes during the Revolutionary War was a general by the name of Benedict Arnold. Of course in the end we don't remember him as a war hero because despite being a war hero his last act in the Revolutionary War was to Betray America to the Redcoats.
Point is, even war heroes betray. In fact that is what makes such a betrayal so deep. And looking at the legalation he has promoted over the years and the fact that he wanted to be Kerry's running mate, McCain's betrayal knows no bounds.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 12:33 PMAre you sure of that? Senators would be much more on guard for that with Obama than with McCain. And much more likely to oppose the appointment if Obama makes it than if McCain does.
And let us not forget that Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Reagan so it isn't unknown for Republicans to appoint very liberal judges (Ike with Warren).
And like I said whatever judges Obama appoints the justices would be in the minority and therefore have no real effect.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 12:40 PMThe difference is Kerry said this about his fellow soldiers, which makes him a traitor. Now, if you can find corresponding video of John McCain equating his fellow troops with the "likes of Ghengis Khan", feel free to enlighten me. You question McCain's patriotism while you've done what for your country? Armchair patriots are a dime a dozen in the Ron Paul camp.
If I or any of my vet relatives were standing near you right now, you would no longer be standing, you'd be screaming for the cops.
That's not a threat. That's a promise.
Posted by: Cliff on June 8, 2008 12:41 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g
Posted by: Jack D on June 8, 2008 12:45 PMYou are scum. You have no honor, no respect, no decency whatsoever. You are a worthless human being. I'd sooner vote for Stalin then anybody you support. I wish you had been tortured in the Hanoi Hilton instead of McCain. Maybe it would have made you more of a man and less worthless.
To correct your idiotic and misinformed statement, he was not "slapped around", they were torturing him while he had THREE BROKEN LIMBS AND DYSENTERY at the time.
And he didn't give them any good information. They asked the names of the men on his carrier and he started naming off NFL football teams. He says he doesn't believe that he gave them anything truthful or useful, although he was so delirious he doesn't remember for sure. Nobody, not the Navy, not the FBI, not any respectable person, accused him of any wrongdoing.
You should be horsewhipped. Fortunately for you, the freedom men like McCain fought and bled and died to give you allows you to make a fool of yourself and prove that you have no honor or decency and nobody can legally stop you. But I dare you to say something like that to the face of a 'Nam vet.
Posted by: The World on June 8, 2008 12:59 PMA very large group of bi-partisan people found that there were no remaining 'nam vets, or if there were one or two, they had long since died.
But you know that. You just don't care because you have no honor, no decency, and no respect. You are scum.
Posted by: Cliff on June 8, 2008 01:05 PM"To correct your idiotic and misinformed statement, he was not "slapped around", they were torturing him while he had THREE BROKEN LIMBS AND DYSENTERY at the time. "
Not my statement. It is what JOHN McCAIN HIMSELF wrote in May 1973 in the US News and World Report.
The only people that should have an interest in Ron Paul's 'movement' is Ron Paul and possibly his Gastroenterologist.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 8, 2008 01:06 PMNow we know why!
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 01:10 PMYou certainly aren't making any Paul converts with your comments and in fact, you're hurting him more effectively than any of his detractors could possibly ever do.
McCain has sacrificed alot for this country and shouldn't have his reputation sullied by the likes of you who've done exactly nothing for your country other than play "guitar hero" and X-box 360 games. Kind of puts it into perspective doesn't it?
Posted by: Rick D. on June 8, 2008 01:17 PM"A meeting which will leave its mark on my life: My meeting with John Sidney McCain was certainly one of those meetings which will affect me most profoundly for the rest of my life. I had asked the North Vietnamese authorities to allow me to personally interrogate an American prisoner. They authorized me to do so. When night fell, they took me--without any precautions or mystery--to a hospital near the Gia Lam Airport reserved for the military. (Passage omitted) The officer who receives me begins: I ask you not to ask any questions of political nature. If this man replies in a way unfavorable to us, they will not hesitate to speak of "brainwashing" and conclude that we threatened him. (Passage omitted) "This John Sidney McCain is not an ordinary prisoner. His father is none other than Admiral Edmond John McCain, commander in chief of U.S. Naval forces in Europe." Written by "prominent" French television reporter Francois Chalais - January 1968
"Reds Say PW Songbird Is Pilot Son of Admiral . . . Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of United States Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain, purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner." Saigon-UPI, June 4, 1969
"The English-Language broadcast beamed at South Vietnam was one of a series using American prisoners. It was in response to a plea by Defense Secretary Melvin S. Laird, May 19, that North Vietnam treat prisoners according to the humanitarian standards set forth by the Geneva Convention." The Washington Post - June 5, 1969
After being periodically slapped around for "three or four days" by his captors who wanted military information from him, McCain called for an officer on his fourth day of captivity. He told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." -U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain
McCain was taken to Gai Lam military hospital. (U.S. government documents)
"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain
Phoenix New Times, March 25, 1999 -- Two former POWs, Air Force Colonels Ted Guy and Gordon "Swede" Larson, said in a feature article that while they could not guarantee that McCain was not physically harmed, they doubted it. Both Guy and Larson were senior ranking officers (SRO's) in McCain's POW camp at a time he claims he was in solitary confinement and being tortured.
Larson told the New Times, "Between the two of us, it's our belief, and to the best of our knowledge, that no prisoner was beaten or harmed physically in that camp [known as 'The Plantation'].
"My only contention with the McCain deal is that while he was at The Plantation, to the best of my knowledge and Ted's knowledge, he was not physically abused in any way. No one was in that camp. It was the camp that people were released from."
During the hearings, he worked hand in hand with his Sen. John Kerry, the panel's co-chairman, to discredit voluminous evidence indicating that Vietnam was still held a sizeable numbers of U.S. servicemen alive after the prisoner return in 1973.
McCain stood out because he "always showed up for the committee hearings where witnesses were going to talk about specific pieces of evidence. He would belittle and berate these witnesses, questioning their patriotism and otherwise scoffing at their credibility. All of this is on record in the National Archives . . . "
When, on Nov. 11, 1992, McCain was advised that Dolores Apodaca Alfond, chairwoman of the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families (her pilot brother, Capt. Victor J. Apodaca, is missing in action in North Vietnam), was offering some testimony that was critical of the Senate Committee, he rushed into the room to confront her.
Award winning journalist Sydney Schanberg described the scene. "His face [McCain] angry and his voice very loud, he accused her of making "allegations ... that are patently and totally false and deceptive." Making a fist, he shook his index finger at her and said she had insulted an emissary to Vietnam sent by President Bush. He said she had insulted other MIA families with her remarks. And then he said, through clenched teeth: "And I am sick and tired of you insulting mine and other people's [patriotism] who happen to have different views than yours."
By this time, tears were running down Alfond's cheeks. She reached into her handbag for a handkerchief. She tried to speak: "The family members have been waiting for years -- years! And now you're shutting down." He kept interrupting her. She tried to say, through tears, that she had issued no insults. He kept talking over her words. He said she was accusing him and others of "some conspiracy without proof, and some cover-up." She said she was merely seeking "some answers. That is what I am asking." He ripped into her for using the word "fiasco." She replied: "The fiasco was the people that stepped out and said we have written the end, the final chapter to Vietnam." "No one said that," he shouted. "No one said what you are saying they said, Ms. Alfond." And then, his face flaming pink, he stalked out of the room, to shouts of disfavor from members of the audience.
McCain took the lead in demanding a U.S. Justice Department investigation of POW/MIA families and activists accusing them of fraud because in some of their fund-raising literature they claimed the U.S. government knowingly left U.S. POWs behind after the Vietnam War and that some remain alive today.
McCain told reporters, "The people who have done these things are not zealots in a good cause. They are the most craven, most cynical and most despicable human beings to ever run a scam." The Justice Department did investigate the POW/MIA families and activists finding NO scams or reasons to charge anyone.
Navy pilot John Sidney McCain III should have never been allowed to graduate from the U.S. Navy flight school. He was a below average student and a lousy pilot. Had his father and grandfather not been famous four star U.S. Navy admirals, McCain III would have never been allowed in the cockpit of a military aircraft.
His father John S. "Junior" McCain was commander of U.S. forces in Europe later becoming commander of American forces in Vietnam while McCain III was being held prisoner of war. McCain III's grandfather John S. McCain, Sr. commanded naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.
During his relative short stunt on flight status, McCain III lost five U.S. Navy aircraft, four in accidents and one in combat.
Robert Timberg, author of The Nightingale's Song, a book about Annapolis graduates and their tours in Vietnam, wrote that McCain "learned to fly at Pensacola, though his performance was below par, at best good enough to get by. He liked flying, but didn't love it."
McCain III lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while practicing landings. He was knocked unconscious by the impact coming to as the plane settled to the bottom.
McCain's second crash occurred while he was deployed in the Mediterranean. "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula," Timberg wrote, "he took out some power lines [reminiscent of the 1998 incident in which a Marine Corps jet sliced through the cables of a gondola at an Italian ski resort, killing 20] which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."
McCain's third crash three occurred when he was returning from flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game.
Timberg reported that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" and went through standard relight procedures three times before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain landed on a deserted beach moments before the plane slammed into a clump of trees.
McCain's fourth aircraft loss occurred July 29, 1967, soon after he was assigned to the USS Forrestal as an A-4 Skyhawk pilot. While seated in the cockpit of his aircraft waiting his turn for takeoff, an accidently fired rocket slammed into McCain's plane. He escaped from the burning aircraft, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and threatened to sink the ship.
McCain's fifth loss happened during his 23rd mission over North Vietnam on Oct. 26, 1967, when McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. McCain ejected from the plane breaking both arms and a leg in the process and subsequently parachuted into Truc Bach Lake near Hanoi.
After being drug from the lake, a mob gathered around McCain, spit on him, kicked him and stripped him of his clothing. He was bayoneted in his left foot and his shoulder crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton.
After being periodically slapped around for "three or four days" by his captors who wanted military information, McCain called for an officer on his fourth day of captivity. He told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." -U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain
"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain.
When the communist learned that McCain's father was Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., the soon-to-be commander of all U.S. Forces in the Pacific, he was rushed to Gai Lam military hospital (U.S. government documents), a medical facility normally unavailable for U.S. POWs.
The communist Vietnamese figured, because POW McCain's father was of such high military rank, that he was of royalty or the governing circle. Thereafter the communist bragged that they had captured "the crown prince."
For 23 combat missions (an estimated 20 hours over enemy territory), the U.S. Navy awarded McCain a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service medals.
"McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat," explains Bill Bell, a veteran of Vietnam and former chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs -- the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon. "Since McCain got 28 medals," Bell continues, "that equals out to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down."
For years, McCain has been an unchecked master at manipulating an overly friendly and biased news media. The former POW turned Congressman, turned U.S. Senator, has managed to gloss over his failures as a pilot and collaborations with the enemy by exaggerating his military service and lying about his feats of heroism.
McCain has sprouted a halo and wings to become America's POW-hero presidential candidate.
You call McCain a conservative, but really, he's a social conservative which is amounts to a Marxist. Just like his buddy Bush.
Where are the true conservative candidates? Individual liberties, personal responsibility, laissez-faire capitalism, free markets, limited government, no nation building? Is McCain really the best the party can do?
I know you got burned with Perot. So did I. But I'm not going to vote socialist with all the other sheep in this country.
Posted by: Dooglio on June 8, 2008 01:31 PMOut of McCain, Obama and Barr...Barr is the only candidate that wants to drill for oil in US soil, in the Gulf of Mexico and increase refining capacity so that supply of oil is increased and gas prices come down
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/10360/
So when gas hits $5 a gallon and Americans begin to realize that Obama and McCain don't have an economic solution to gas prices...you still think that Barr will get only 1%?
Another question...Obama and McCain are about to start tearing each other apart...suppose there was both a McCain and Obama scandal and it was so downright nasty that you conscience wouldn't allow you to vote for either of them...you still think that Barr will get only 1%?
Posted by: Edward on June 8, 2008 01:35 PMWell, sure it is. It worked on McCain.
It worries me that McCain would not do whatever it takes to stop another 9-11. Perhaps he identifies too much with the prisoners at Gitmo.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 01:41 PMWell, this time he ran as a Republican. I call it stealth, like the Paul buddies are doing "county by county" with the Republican party, as one of my buddy nuts said. Too bad they don't do this with the democrat party!
What do you call a cross between a libertarian and a Republican? Li-publican?
If you are free spirit libertarian, believe in the hippy 60's and mj, you can do the dimocrats a favor--vote for Ron Paul.
Me I'm going back to my tinfoil hat and try to make contact with my buddy Ron Paul. Any of the rest of you nuts want to make it a conference call? Maybe we can ask him for his autograph as the also ran. Like Ross Perot.
Posted by: Ken Howard on June 8, 2008 01:46 PMThat he will eradicate conservatives and conservatism from the Republican party.
Haven't we seen that from his people to some extent already. Just think what he could do as President.
Posted by: Nick on June 8, 2008 01:58 PMYou are pathetic.
RP's voters are the most educated and well spoken individual's I've ever met. And yeah, I hope you get pissed at that comment. I think the rest of the GOP are morons!
Posted by: Matt on June 8, 2008 02:54 PMI haven't (nor have you) lost any constitutional rights, but please feel free to enlighten us as to when, how and in what way this happened.
If your only hope is Barr, Edward, then you've got a real dilemna. 1% would be a great showing for the L's and if any of you are willing, perhaps you can research the highest percentage ever achieved by a "Libertarian" party candidate and share with the group. After Perot, I vowed never to just piss away my vote again and this election is no different. You have 2 and only 2 choices and one of them WILL WIN the whitehouse in November. You decide which.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 8, 2008 03:11 PM"Pissed?" No.
I could no more get "pissed" at that comment then I could get "pissed" at a child informing me that cookies are a health food.
It's more silly and cute then anger inducing.
Posted by: Cliff on June 8, 2008 03:26 PMAdd that to Bush's "Free Speech Zones" and that effectively kills the 1st Amendment. The 2nd amendment is on its way out with fascist departments like FEMA. Not to mention the war on drugs violates the 9th and 10th amendments.
Also Bush's numerous executive orders and signing statements. I'd say our liberties are very much under fire, and this war on our liberties is being prosecuted by both Democrats and Republicans.
If you think you haven't lost your right to keep your property, just try to tell that to the IRS. And I don't see "conservatives" like Bush or McCain standing up against that sort of tyranny.
Anyway, here is more along the lines of the difference between a declaration of war and resolution giving the president authority to declare war on his own:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html
Posted by: Dooglio on June 8, 2008 03:27 PMDo you think what you posted vindicated you?
Are you actually that stupid and unanalytical?
Are you actually that incapable of thinking of things in context?
Because what you posted just makes you look like the fool you are. I can't believe you don't see it.
Posted by: The World on June 8, 2008 03:30 PMFirst, as already alluded to, the resolution does not say anywhere that a formal declaration of war has been made, such as Congress did in 1941. "That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared."
It seems that if it was the intent of Congress to perform their duty as required by Article 1 Section 8, they would have followed a format similar to the 1941 declaration, which is unambiguous. Consider, especially, as others have noted that such an unambiguous declaration of war was introduced by Ron Paul and largely ignored. So no, their intention was not to adhere to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, but rather to adhere (and reluctantly, it seems) to the much more fashionable War Powers Resolution of 1973, which itself is of questionable Constitutionality.
This gets to the second reason the resolution was not a declaration of war. If Congress' intent was not to perform their duties under Art. 1 Sect. 8 -- as I am suggesting they purposefully skirted -- then what was their intention? Consider the difference in timing and the nature of the declaration in 1941 versus the resolution of 2002. The 1941 declaration was made the day after we were attacked (Dec 8). It was unambiguous that what had been a day-long and unofficial state of war was now an officially recognized one. There was no mention of first exhausting various diplomatic options or meeting certain points of further determination. It simply said we were at war with the Imperial Government of Japan. Note also that the enemy is not "Japan"; the enemy is the "Imperial Government of Japan."
The 2002 resolution on the other hand was passed in October - five months before we began our invasion. The resolution, something like 20 or 30 times lengthier than the 1941 declaration, included a laundry list of all the reasons why the President should be authorized to use force against Iraq (except of course because they attacked us.) Then, rather than making the determination that war is necessary (or already present as it was in 1941) it transfers this determination to the President: "[He shall] make available to [Congress] his determination that -- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq..."
I think the intention of Congress is clear: they created bait-and-switch legislation. When it passed in October and these politicians were made to answer to their constituents, they could say that they still preferred and in fact required diplomacy. But when it came time to actually attack Iraq, the political risk in doing so lied only with the President to make the final determination and "report back" to congress.
I hate bait-and-switch legislation in general, but the Iraq resolution of 2002 was just the worst kind and has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Posted by: Matt H on June 8, 2008 03:32 PMJust so you know, every time you post something from "lewrockwell.com" you instantly lose the argument. Lew Rockwell is a lunatic and a blatant, unrepentant racist. And that's just the more charming qualities everybody knows about.
Posted by: The World on June 8, 2008 03:32 PMWell, then that's not a choice. Saying that one kind of toadstool is less poisonous than other is still not incentive to eat it for dinner.
I vote my conscience because I cannot bring myself to vote for either mainstream candidate because they are both socialists.
Posted by: Dooglio on June 8, 2008 03:37 PMI have war veterans in my family that would like to knock you on your ass and have you crying for the cops - Does that somehow make me right now? No, it only made me as lame as you. Logically speaking, of course. :)
Logic is your friend. Try that instead of foolishly making idle threats that show us all your weakness and your inability to reason your way through something that makes you uncomfortable.
Posted by: Liberty_Belle on June 8, 2008 03:48 PMWow, now that is someone I'd call a kook. Cover your head, go back to sleep. You'll wake up some day.
Posted by: BlueCalico on June 8, 2008 04:40 PMAnyways..
Clark County NV Ron Paul delegate.
The tricks of the trade mean that they will 'plant' people to make Ron Paul people look as bad as possible, any idiot that doesn't have clue about what the Constitution is but needs a few bucks is game for that.
They're doing anything and everything to stop this movement. They won't succeed, but they will most likely get their new fascist leader in place by any means necessary, then the Constitution won't matter at all.
Posted by: Margaret on June 8, 2008 05:41 PMOK you supporters. If RP is SOOO good. How come most of American passes him by?
Your the nuts we run from.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 8, 2008 05:42 PMWhy do you keep baiting these idiots? Any Paultard posting brings out more nuts than harvest day at the Blue Diamond plant. Crawl back in your holes already.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 8, 2008 06:30 PMSorry, man, most Ron Paul supporters will not let you have it both ways. They will not support a GOP that is violating too many of their own principles. I gave a lot of money to the Ron Paul campaign, and am glad I did. But I could never support McCain, and I regret becoming a Republican and GOP precinct rep.
Some RP fans will stay with the GOP and try to change it from within. I hope they are successful. Some will support the Libertarian Party and Bob Barr in 2008. He's the next best thing to Ron Paul. Most will slink back into the non-voting discouraged majority.
Other candidates will come along that will inspire them to participate again. I hear that Ron Paul has inspired about 40 candidates to seek nomination to offices across the nation.
Spokane in 2008 was a battle for the soul of the GOP. It was the Goldwater wing vs. the neocons. I think that both Liberty and decorum lost.
As for me, I am happy to vote Libertarian, and support the Libertarian Party. It feels good to be among people who agree on the value of liberty. But the GOP just doesn't do it for me.
To those who say that we need to vote for the lesser of two evils, I say that my individual vote will not change the outcome. All of the electoral college votes from WA will almost certainly go to Obama no matter how I vote. I am therefore free to vote my conscience. It is voting for the lesser of two evils that has given us the lousy candidates we tend to get these days.
I'd rather vote for Bob Barr, knowing I agree with him 90% of the time, and in the process work to build the third largest party in to a viable alternative in the long run. I only agree with McCain about half the time, and Obama about 30% of the time. I will not sell my vote cheap. McCain does not rise to my standards. Ron Paul and Bob Barr both do.
Vote your conscience. Don't let the big party people try to control your vote or use guilt or scare tactics. The only thing your vote is likely to be able to do is make you feel good or to make you feel like a chump. Set high standards and defend your values, or don't vote at all. When you vote for a candidate who wins, you share some of the culpability for all of his or her mistakes.
Don't just vote for the lesser of two evils. It makes you feel cheap and used.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 8, 2008 08:34 PMSo I really don't see what the fuss is about. Like it or not, this is the state of our system. I personally don't like it much, but until I see a movement with far more charisma and momentum than Ron Paul's, why bother to vote outside of the two mainstream candidates.
Barack Obama will probably do more damage to the country immediately than McCain, but many Ron Paul supporters are correct in observing that McCain's damage may be the philosophical damage of eliminating some libertarian and conservative principles for a time.
It's an ugly election with no real winners, but I don't see how throwing away a vote, or sitting on the sidelines helps.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 8, 2008 09:23 PMParty principles can be regained; reversing nationalization of the oil companies, or nationalized healthcare, or the Fairness Doctrine will be nearly impossible.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 8, 2008 10:57 PM@ All - I think most Ron Paul people do consider themselves Republicans and have come here hoping to iron out the differences between us all so that we can come together for Dino Rossi. Calling us names and telling us were nuts isn't helping the party unite and it certainly isn't helping the sad state we're in (together)as a country.
Calling Nick a worthless scum for having a differing point of view is about the most anti- Libertarian, anti- American thing I've heard in here all week and I remind you, as I think Jeff B. is already sort of doing, of our party's Libertarian roots and ask you to think carefully before you decide we're worthless to you. I mean, we *could* go away but considering what's at stake in November here at home, I'd think losing Republican party members in Washington because you ASKED them to go away would be a lot like shooting yourself in the foot, painful and dumb. Believe it or not, we CAN agree on what we all want for Washington State and maybe if we weren't spending all our time here defending ourselves, or our choice, to you all we could get to that.
Posted by: Liberty_Belle on June 8, 2008 11:53 PMIt could be that Congress is skirting the issue, but within the history of the wars the us has been only 5 of them have had a formal declaration of war the rest were authorized by Congress. Here is the list of wars authorized by Congress without a formal declartion along with the year it started:
Quasi-War France Act Further to Protect the Commerce of the United States
July 9, 1798
First Barbary War Barbary States 1801[citation needed]
Second Barbary War Barbary States 1815[citation needed]
Raid of slave traffic Africa 1820[citation needed]
Redress for attack on U.S. Navy vessel Paraguay 1859[citation needed]
Intervention during the Russian Civil War Bolshevist Russia 1918[citation needed]
Lebanon crisis of 1958 Rebels 1958[citation needed]
Vietnam War National Liberation Front, later Democratic Republic of Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 1964
Multinational Force in Lebanon Shia and Druze miltias; Syria S
September 29, 1983
Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm Iraq
January 12, 1991
2001 war in Afghanistan,
September 14,
Iraq War, October 16, 2002
So history dating back to the late 1700's show that Congress has apporved armed conflict without a formal declaration of war and the first one was around at the time of the founding father's who truly know what they meant in the Constitution.
As for Iraq not being an enemy, I agree that it may not have been the best time and place for it that we should have finished the job in 91 instead of waiting till now. On the otherhand; Saddam violated the cesation of hostilities that was agreed upon at the end of the first gulf war and he repeatedly tried to shoot down US warplanes in the no fly zone (that is a direct attack against the United States).
One final thought is that we are already in Iraq and we should not leave this country in shambles for Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran or any other terrorist group to take over as their own. We have made lots of progress and so has the Iraqi government. I see it on a daily basis. It is truly amazing to see the citizens of Iraq starting to truly believe that they can have a country that is thiers and that they have more control over their lives than they did before.
Agree True Soldier. And that's how many of us felt when we were where you are now...way back in '91.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 9, 2008 05:32 AMYou see, the fact is that most Paul supporters insist on living in a world of delusion, where reality rarely enters. I have yet to stumble across a pragmatic Paulistinian, yourself included, who actually sees the opportunities presented.
You people want it all Paul's way, and you want it all RIGHT NOW. You fail to acknowledge the damage done by Paul's bigoted, racist rants in the past. You fail to acknowledge that some of his positions and reasoning are politically moronic. You fail to suggest that Paul and your movement would be best served if Paul were to take steps to rehabilitate his image, thereby gaining at least some shred of credibility among the more mainstream of America... you know, anyone to the left of Hitler, and to the right of Stalin?
By all means... vote libertarian. Vote green martian, for all I care. And feel free to take everyone else as politically ignorant and delusional as yourself with you. Because frankly, I'd rather lose without you, then win with you.
Posted by: Hinton on June 9, 2008 09:47 AMIt is often presented as "follow the Constitution", "freedom" and "small Government" but what does this really mean?
Through history there are countless examples of big Governments abusing power. "Power corrupts" as they say. Nazi Germany (a democracy), Mao's China, The Soviet Union and Mugabe's Zimbabwe to name a few.
Our most important responsibility as citizens is to know what our Government is doing and make sure no abuse of power takes place.
It is important that we keep up the debate about the role of our Government regardless of whether we as individuals believe it should be bigger or smaller. Letting Government grow and slowly letting it increase it's powers without openness, visibility and involvement of the people is a formula for disaster.
Posted by: Lars on June 9, 2008 10:08 AMIf your choice is standing 24 hours on dry land or 24 hours on ice, the answer is like my choice for Presidential Candidates--I don't like cold or socialism. I know where I stand.
Posted by: Ken Howard on June 9, 2008 10:26 AMAnd I am happy to grant you your preference to lose without me.
Some of my predictions have been wrong in the past, but so have yours. And here is another prognostication: No matter how you or I vote, Obama will win all of Washington State's electoral college votes, and will also win the election.
I'm not particularly happy about this, but the GOP has dug it's own grave by allowing the neocons to take over from the Reagan conservatives. I believe that the neocons are really liberals.
Here is another point: you can not both be a fiscal conservative and advocate long-term US military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and 130 of the world's 190 nations. It is unsustainable, and it will destroy our economy, and that will undermine our defense capability. "War is the health of the state," (Ambrose Bierce) and we will see the war used to expand the power of the state over our wallets and our liberty.
You can not both be a fiscal conservative and a neocon on foreign policy. The two are logically incompatible.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 9, 2008 10:55 AMI had no idea that so many jews were in charge.
You know when people like you post (necons) jews.
You show all of us why so many racist hang around RP!
1) The US should invade other countries and set up permanent bases there. We should overthrow governments we don't like and spend US taxpayer money defending foreigners. The US has a significant, moral role in policing the world.
2) Federal overspending is not a problem. Budget deficits are not a concern. Tax cuts are not high priorities either and when they are enacted can be minimal. Tax increases at least should be avoided.
3) The Constitution should be ignored when it prevents the President from acting in the interests of the federal government or can be justified on security grounds. Formal declarations of war are uneccessary, and the fourth amendment is to be waived at the sole discretion of the president.
4) Privacy and civil liberties are not important. Personal and financial information should be maintained on each citizen in order to fight money laundering, the drug war, and the war on terrorists. A national ID card is not a significant violation of individual liberty.
5) Our occupation of foreign nations does not create significant "blowback" in the form of attacks on US citizens both at home and abroad.
6) The federal department of education, among others, should have more power, in spite of the fact that there is no constitutional justification for them.
7) Starting a war with Islam may be acting out God's plan to bring on the Apocolypse, and hence the second coming of Christ and the "end times."
Nowhere in this list is the requirement that all neocons be Jewish.
For the record, I have no anti-semitism. As a kid, I attended three or four bar mitvah's, and I recently did a teaching internship at a mostly-Jewish private school.
Army Medic/Vet, your personal attack on both me and Ron Paul is unsubstantiated. And don't trot out the old guilt by association stuff. It doesn't work.
But what I'd like to know is, which of the features of being a neocon above have I gotten wrong? What is YOUR definition of a neocon? Which do you agreee or disagree with as well? Let's talk about ideas and issues instead of attacking each other with racial slurs. That's more what I expect from the left, not the right.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 9, 2008 07:09 PMYou've taken my words out of context. This is intellectually dishonest.
What I wrote was:
"Hinton @ 107, I'd rather lose in the short run while preserving the possibility of winning in the long run."
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 9, 2008 07:13 PMI support Dr. Paul because he does seem to understand the Constitution much better than most. He is not perfect though, I feel he is too weak on controlling our probelms with illegal immigration, but he does have a firm understanding of the monetary system and the effects of loose fiscal policy. That is something that neither the Republicans, no matter how much they claim to be conservative, nor the Democrats seem to understand.
We are all Americans with our own unique view of what is best for this country, but one telling fact is that we all greedily accepted our economic stimulus checks sent to us by the benevolent George W. Bush. How far in debt is this country, $9 trillion? Yet the President, somehow found $1.6 billion so that he could inject some cash into our economy in the hopes of reviving it.
Folks, we have no economy. Our jobs are all in some foreign countries now, so any money we do spend will not be helping America, or American workers.
We as citizens need to stop looking to the government to solve all our problems, when in truth it is through their mismanagement that we have these problems to begin with.
Anyone who claims to be a true conservative, and still follows George W. Bush and his misguided view of conservatism, does not understand what it means to be a conservative.
Ron Paul, with all his flaws, is probably the most conservative of all those holding office, and that is why he is feared, because he threatens the status quo.
Posted by: Neal on June 11, 2008 03:30 AM